Comparison of the Spreading Characters of Fire Products in the Typical Metro Stations of Washington, D.C., and Guangzhou

Abstract

Fire is one of the most common disasters that threaten the safety of the crowd in metro stations. Due to the variations in the design of metro stations, the hazard posed by the spreading products of the fire can pose different risks. The typical structures of metro stations in Guangzhou and Washington, D.C., are very different from each other. In Washington, D.C., the “high-dome” structure is predominant in the construction of metro stations, while in Guangzhou, most metro stations have the “flat ceiling” structure. In this article, a numerical modeling for fire dynamic simulation is used to predict and compare the spreading characters of fire products (the smoke height change, the temperature distribution and the visibility change) when fires with 2.5 MW heat release rate occur in the platform center and at the platform end in the two kinds of metro stations. The results show that, in the same fire scenario, the lowest smoke heights monitored in the Guangzhou model is 0.6 m (fire at the platform end) and 0.8 m (fire in the platform center) above the safe smoke height in 360 s after a fire breaks out, while it is 6.15 m (fire in the platform center) and 6.2 m (fire at the platform end) above the smoke height in the Washington model. The temperature increment in the Guangzhou model is 23 °C (fire in the platform center) to 29 °C (fire at the platform end) in 360 s after the fire breaks out, while the temperature increment in the same period in the Washington model is 8.5 °C (fire at the platform end) to 9 °C (fire in the platform center). The visibility of most areas on the platform of the Guangzhou model is about 1 m no matter the fire is in the platform center or at the platform end at 360 s after the fire begins, while in the Washington model, the visibility of most areas is 1.5–13.5 mm (fire at the platform end) to 4–14 m (fire in the platform center) at the same moment. Based on the results, the environment is worse when the fire happens at the end of the platform than that when the fire happens in the platform center of the Guangzhou model. While the fire location has fewer impacts on the smoke height, temperature, and visibility in the Washington model, metro stations with a high-dome structure can be beneficial to fire evacuation safety; however, the construction cost can be high. Metro stations with flat ceiling are widely used in more cities for it has lower construction cost; to compensate for its weaker abilities under fire conditions, it is suggested that smoke exhaust systems should be carefully and fully considered.

Keywords

Metro station / Fire dynamic simulation / Fire products / Spreading characters / Smoke spread / Numerical modeling

References

[1] Shi CL, Zhong MH, Nong XZ, He L, Shi JH, Feng GG. Modeling and safety strategy of passenger evacuation in a metro station in China. Saf Sci, 2012, 50: 1319-1332

[2] Zhao SZ A numerical study on smoke movement in a metro tunnel with a non-axisymmetric cross-section. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 2018, 73: 187-202

[3] Babrauskas V A methodology for obtaining and using toxic potency data for fire hazard analysis. Fire Saf J, 1998, 31: 345-358

[4] London Regional Transport (1984) The fire on 23rd November 1984 at Oxford Circus station: enquiry report. Railways Archive. Retrieved 3 July 2013

[5] Fennell D (1988) Investigation into the King's cross underground fire. HMSO Publications Centre, pp 15–19

[6] Hedefalk J, Wahlstrom B, Rohlen P (1998) Lessons from the Baku subway fire. Proc Int Conf Safety in Road and Rail Tunnels, pp 15–28

[7] Lee M, Hur N. A detailed CFD simulation of the 2003 Daegu Metro station fire. Int J Air-Condit Refrig, 2012, 20(03): 1250014

[8] Huang DY, Lo SM, Chen J, Fu ZJ, Zheng Y, Luo L, Zhuang YF, Cheng H, Yang L. Mapping fire risk of passenger-carried fire load in metro system via floor field cellular automaton. Autom Constr, 2019, 100: 61-72

[9] Babrauskas V, Gann RG, Levin BC, Paabo M, Harris RH, Peacock RD, Yusa S. A methodology for obtaining and using toxic potency data for fire hazard analysis. Fire Saf J, 1998, 31: 345-358

[10] Tong Y, Shi MH, Gong YF, He JP. Full-scale experimental study on smoke flow in natural ventilation road tunnel fires with shafts. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 2009, 24: 627-633

[11] Blanchard E, Boulet P, Desanghere S, Cesmat E. Experimental and numerical study of fire in a midscale test tunnel. Fire Saf J, 2012, 47: 18-31

[12] Zhu P, Wei WZ, Mei J, Tu JF, Ding R. Numerical simulation & scene experiment of metro tunnel with crossover interval under fire conditions. Procedia Eng, 2017, 205: 87-94

[13] Weng MC, Yu LX, Liu F, Nielsen PV. Full-scale experiment and CFD simulation on smoke movement and smoke control in a metro tunnel with one opening portal. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 2014, 42: 96-104

[14] Meng N, Wang Q, Liu ZX, Li X, Yang H. Smoke flow temperature beneath tunnel ceiling for train fire at subway station: reduced-scale experiments and correlations. Appl Therm Eng, 2017, 115: 995-1003

[15] Giachetti B, Couton D, Plourde F. Smoke spreading analyses in a subway fire scale model. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 2017, 70: 233-239

[16] Meng N, Hu LH, Wu L, Yang LZ, Zhu S, Chen LF, Tang W. Numerical study on the optimization of smoke ventilation mode at the conjunction area between tunnel track and platform in emergency of a train fire at subway station. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 2014, 40: 151-159

[17] Zhao D, Jiang JC, Zhou R, Tong Y, Wu F, Shi LJ. Numerical study on the optimization of smoke ventilation mode for interchange subway station fire. Int J Vent, 2016, 15(1): 79-93.

[18] Yuan FD, You SJ. CFD simulation and optimization of the ventilation for subway side-platform. Tunn Undergr Space Technol, 2007, 22: 474-482

[19] Wang BB. Comparative research on FLUENT and FDS’s numerical simulation of smoke spread in subway platform fire. Procedia Eng, 2011, 26: 1065-1075

[20] Hadjisophocleous G, Jia Q. Comparison of FDS prediction of smoke movement in a 10-storey building with experimental data. Fire Technol, 2019, 45: 163-177

[21] Glasa J, Valasek L, Weisenpacher P Cinema fire modelling by FDS. J Phys Conf Ser, 2013, 410(1): 1-4.

[22] Liang JH, Li X, Lin JH Analysis of EMU fire based on PyroSim. J Chongqing Univer Technol (Nat Sci Ed), 2014, 28(10): 35-37 (in Chinese)

[23] Meng N, Hu LH, Wu L, Yang LZ, Zhu S, Chen LF, Tang W. Numerical study on the optimization of smoke ventilation mode at the conjunction area between tunnel track and platform in emergency of a train fire at subway station. Tunnell Underground Space Technol Incorp Trenchless Technol Res, 2014, 40: 151-159

[24] Wu JS, Hu ZQ, Chen JY, Li Z. Risk assessment of underground subway stations to fire disasters using Bayesian network. Sustainability, 2018, 10(10): 3810

[25] Hansell GO, Morgan HP (1994) Design approaches for smoke control in atrium buildings. Buildings Research Establishing Report (BR-258), UK

[26] Gunnar H, Michael AD. The initial convective flow in fire. Fire Saf J, 1989, 15(6): 471-475

[27] Jeon GY, Kim JY, Hong WH, Augenbroe G. Evacuation performance of individuals in different visibility conditions. Build Environ, 2011, 46(5): 1094-1103

[28] Wikipedia. Average Human Height by Country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country#References.

[29] Brewer R, Morrison L (2015) Fire alarm detection in high-ceiling rooms. In: 35th annual conference of the Canadian nuclear society. Canadian Nuclear Society, Saint John

[30] Shi CL, Fu TR, He L, Zhong MH, Tu XW (2008) Train fire smoke control in deep buried island metro station. In: The 2008 international symposium on safety science and technology

[31] International Code Council (2018) International Building Code. Falls Church, Virginia, United States